International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2015
The Corruption Footprint Index (CFI): A New Index about Measuring
Corruption
Dr. Dimitrios Prontzas
Assistant Professor of Corruption
Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences
Department of Sociology
Syngrou Andrea Avenue 136, Kallithea
Athens, Greece
Abstract
In this text Corruption Footprint Index (CFI) is introduced as an indicator that comes to boost the scientific
analysis of the calculative dimension (measuring indicators) of the complex corruption phenomenon. An
indicator that is one more tool in this calculative dimension of corruption. In parallel it enforces the scientific
discipline and the interdisciplinary one which is demanded in the analysis and approaches(in national and
global level) of the other two dimensions of corruption, of the conceptual (meaning and definition) and factual
(forms of their appearance in practice).
Keywords: Corruption, Corruption Footprint Index, Definition, Good Governance, Culture of Corruption,
Indicators.
1. What is corruption?
It is a conceptual structure that accredits in an action (human action) a special feature (positive or negative)? It
is moving from the approval pole (from who, what and why?) until the pole of rejection (encore from who,
what and why) of the same action or its results? It is a social, customized, related to law, ostensible situation
or regular? Depending upon these ostensible situations- regularities of population all over the world by their
existential time as well, it forms conceptual and factual content, form and consequence in very human action,
for every single country and culture all over the world? These springboard questions are credited to be raised
from each researcher of the phenomenon for every country separately in the world. Provided that they are not
answered in the framework of a specific gait, are leading to the definition of the corruption phenomenon
which concerns the need for maximization of the use of the human actions, material or immaterial (a clear
estimation of cost and benefit) with its strategic point to be considered that this need overcomes the regularity
shaft to be in the crisis and the reflexes of every social sum in the field, time and the result of this need to be
the catalytic effect on the social, political, economic, cultural system of every social sum.
2. The Corruption Footprint Index(CFI)
In the field of the measuring indicators of corruption, the corruption, the human development and the good
governance, as fundamental meanings and indexes of analysis consist an object of manifold correlation. One
such correlation is what is described here, with the attempted introduction and construction of a new index,
the “Corruption Footprint Index” (CFI). It is a fact that, the “footprint” as a concept, has already been
sought, through the combination for the environment, the society, the culture, the community and governance,
that is the five pillars on which this of corruption will be also added, which analyze the perfect techniques for
the practice of sustainable development which is often shrunk in its “environmental” dimension.
If corruption encumbers prices of products and services increases the cost of covering the needs of citizens
and so in order this weakening of the economic system to be dealt with, has led to the search for a trace (The
Corruption Footprint, 2012). The trace is generated by factors such as the higher education of executives
trained in active corruption with the form of bribery, ethics committee participants and meeting frequency,
business partners’ audit, and is expressed as “bribe footprint” which contributes to the creation of an analysis
tool of senior employees’ behavior. This indicator shows the way that corruption is sought within business
with parameters of turnover, employment contracts, the transparency index of the country, the countries’
network with hom the company has relationships (The Corruption Footprint, 2012).
115
ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online)
©Center for Promoting Ideas, USA
www.ijhssnet.com
This index as a notion can be of a specific elaboration in another direction. The processing dates beyond the
“bribe footprint” of businesses in the peculiar conception “corruption footprint” of countries. Certainly several
risks are lurking in the allusive dimension, which includes the name of the index, and indeed constitutes an
attempt. In our case the index captures the assessment of “effects- results”, “forms-practices of corruption” in
a country, through the correlation of aspects of perception of corruption, proper governance and human
development (Prontzas D., 2014). The principles of perception of this index are the following: Firstly, the
interaction between the two ratios of corruption (positive or negative) and the proper governance in
developments a fundamental correlation in the aggregation of the researchers of the phenomenon. In
particular, for the issue of corruption, some concerns or assumptions should be noted. In scientific research on
the phenomenon of corruption issues of leadership cannot be set as well as those of economic, social, political
or criminal sciences.
Maybe of course the complexity of the phenomenon, the multiplicity of its baseline cultural standards of
custom, traditions, attitudes, require the approach, primarily as a social and political and following as an
economic issue. However, the expertise of corruption, its conversion to a comparable and measurable
dimension, imposed and simultaneously allowed the passage of the reef of its moral “demonization” and the
breaching of the entrenched geometrical locus of its moralistic approach. Clearly the most difficult to reach
and measurable forms of the phenomenon is the intangible ones, that is, not corruption but favoritism, fraud
but not discrimination, not white or black, but the gray field. The phenomenon of corruption, through
documented analysis, however, requires the conceptual illumination of social, political and economic impact
and the way in which is installed in the social and economic relations (Prontzas D.,2014).
Economists agree that development strategies must take into account the political and cultural facts, from
which and through them, those strategies will be implemented. Strong perceptual ability, specific social and
cultural values are needed for the developed efforts of sketching phenomena of corruption. Admittedly,
questions become particularly demanding whether poverty produces corruption or development is its mound,
if corruption is caused in the development process or if corruption is useful or necessary on the economic
growth (for some countries around the world). The variations of the phenomenon initiate from man to man,
from social group to social group, from elite to elite, from culture to culture, from custom to custom, from
country to country, from continent to continent. The countries and their populations, produce, maintain, alter
or eliminate forms of the phenomenon. In each country, the sources, structures, parameters and effects of
corruption, are differentiated into a greater or lesser degree, but in no time and space are these same. Each
separate culture of corruption produces exactly the multiculturalism of the phenomenon.
The democratic or authoritarian, economic, or social legitimization of corruption, does not imply strength in
space and time and much more doesn’t always imply and perpetually similar results. As corruption is not
(only) a transportable phenomenon or practice from country to country, a critical issue is the development
and practical application of theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of corruption from country to country,
when development efforts are combined and aligned with conventional approaches of corruption. So the
failure of comprehension of the nature and its extent from country to country and thus, it doesn’t allow easy
positive or negative correlations with the issue of development(ProntzasD.,2014).Secondly, the two
indicators, the Corruption Perception Index (CPI)and World governance indicators (WGI),incur wide
acceptance and are the main starting point of production of scientific studies, formulation and evaluation of
policies at an international level, concerning the issues of corruption and governance. Corresponding earnings
as a tool for research and policy, incur the Human Development Index(HDI)as well. Thirdly, both the
methodology and the components that shape the specific indicators allow up until now, the fullest possible
approach and evaluation of the three critical issues of corruption, proper governance and development.
Fourth, there are cases involving the theoretical placement of the majority of scientists on the negative
correlation both indefinitely and short term, corruption and proper governance in the development are partly
confirmed. As there are cases of countries for which are accredited, those placements of researchers who
advocate the theoretical positioning and analysis of so-called positive effects of corruption in a country seem
to be confirmed (according to the recording of indicators CPI, WGI, HDI and CFI for European Union
countries such as Greece, Italy, and other).An additional theorem is produced in parallel, in the analysis on the
positive impact of corruption, this of the positive influence and misuse of government in the development of
certain countries. Consequently, the demanding and critical issue of identifying, calculating and study the
characteristics of the phenomena of corruption and governance in each country separately emerges, firstly to
outline the conditions under which are shaped and contexts in which they are grown both sizes, secondly to
design effective policies that take into account the specific origins and implications, and not the general
assumption of governance and development.
116
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2015
Fifthly, the two indicators of good governance and human development are composed of elements which are
in diametrically opposed theoretical and factual position, in which each data is included in the case of the
conceptual factual determination corruption. The voice and accountability, political stability and absence of
violence terrorism, government effectiveness, regulatory quality interventions, the rule of law, control of
corruption, are parameters are related to the scope of the concept of transparency, that is, the opposite of
corruption.
In parallel, meeting the basic human needs, strengthening the personal income, improving health services and
education and increasing life expectancy, compose on the one hand some of the changes that are the result of
economic growth and are included in the human development index. On the other hand, they are associated in
the most accredited way with the transparency, the proper governance and their results.
Sixthly, the corruption footprint index results from the function (Prontzas D.,2014):
)
= (
×
×
CFI: Corruption Footprint Index, HDI: Human Development Index, CPI: Corruption Perception Index, WGI:
World governance indicators.
In this equation, the index of governance, results from the average of individual governance indicators: Voice
and accountability, Political stability / absence of violence and terrorism, Government effectiveness, Quality
regulatory interventions, Rule of law, Control of corruption.
−2,5
All these six indicators, as mentioned, have the same measurement scale. That is:
=
2,5
The scale of the Corruption Perception Index ranges from 1 to 10 and that of the human development index
from 0 to 1. All these three indicators are then given in different units of measurement. To overcome this
problem and use the equation of corruption footprint index, their prices are converted in the ranging size from
0 and 1, with the following equation:
=
Concerning the scale of the corruption footprint index, it ranges from 0 to 1. As the performance rates of a
country approach number one, the imprint of corruption in the country is considered to diminish, i.e. the
effects of the forms of corruption are small. Conversely, as the performance of a country is close to zero, then
the impact of the phenomenon of corruption it is bigger and stronger. Critical point is the condition in which,
in order for a country to be included in this index there have to be, for each year separately, available data for
all individual indicators forming the Corruption Footprint Index.
)indicates that, the incidence of corruption or its imprint in a country
The function
= (
×
×
is the function of the size of the corruption, the level of proper governance and human development. Hence,
the corruption footprint in a country, is attributed to the synergy of these three factors, each of which can be
broken down into individual components, without of course the meaning that the agents are equivalent as their
relative importance varies from country to country, as a result of the special qualities of these three sizes
found in each country separately.
3. Conclusions
The Corruption Footprint Index (CFI) allows the indication of the results (positive or negative) of the forms
of corruption in a country through the correlation of the factors in the perception of corruption, of the proper
governing and human development. Specifically useful – related to the results and the production of its
conclusions- for the planning and the enforcement of political strategies for the handling of the contemporary
situations of crisis- transitions in national and global level. Finally presents the implementing, of the
Corruption Footprint Index (CFI) for some countries of the European Union and the Economic and Monetary
Union (about implementing, registration and conclusions in all areas of the EU and the EMU countries for
the period 1995-2010, Prontzas D., 2014).
117
ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online)
©Center for Promoting Ideas, USA
www.ijhssnet.com
Table 1: Corruption Footprint Index, Human Development Index, and Corruption Perception Index
and World governance indicators in Germany (1995-2010)
Germany
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
WorldGovernanceIndicators -WGI
HumanDevelopmentIndex–HDI
0,835
0,816
0,906
0,911
0,921
0,864
0,921
0,925
0,930
0,932
0,895
0,898
0,901
0,902
0,900
0,885
0,817
0,834
0,812
0,782
0,789
0,797
0,805
0,804
0,795
0,790
0,787
CorruptionPerceptionIndex-CPI
0,814
0,827
0,823
0,790
0,800
0,760
0,740
0,730
0,770
0,820
0,820
0,800
0,780
0,790
0,800
0,790
CorruptionFootprintIndex-CFI
0,587
0,547
0,548
0,559
0,602
0,584
0,578
0,565
0,566
0,568
0,550
Source: Prontzas D., 2014
Table 2: Corruption Footprint Index, Human Development Index, and Corruption Perception Index
and World governance indicators in France
(1995-2010)
France
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
WorldGovernanceIndicators–WGI
HumanDevelopmentIndex -HDI
0,819
0,747
0,918
0,917
0,924
0,846
0,925
0,932
0,938
0,942
0,869
0,873
0,877
0,879
0,880
0,872
0,733
0,739
0,734
0,732
0,757
0,752
0,752
0,746
0,751
0,745
0,754
CorruptionPerceptionIndex-CPI
0,700
0,696
0,666
0,670
0,660
0,670
0,670
0,630
0,690
0,710
0,750
0,740
0,730
0,690
0,690
0,680
CorruptionFootprintIndex-CFI
0,450
0,418
0,430
0,473
0,506
0,490
0,485
0,477
0,455
0,452
0,447
Source: Prontzas D., 2014
Table3: Corruption Footprint Index, Human Development Index, Corruption Perception Index and World
governance indicators in Czech Republic
(1995-2010)
CzechRepublic
WorldGovernanceIndicators–WGI
1995
1996
0,655
1999
2000
CorruptionPerceptionIndex-CPI
CorruptionFootprintIndex-CFI
0,788
0,674
1997
1998
HumanDevelopmentIndex–HDI
0,611
2001
0,537
0,833
0,520
0,843
0,480
0,844
0,460
0,816
0,430
0,861
0,390
0,265
0,214
2002
0,673
0,868
0,370
0,216
2003
0,673
0,874
0,390
0,229
2004
0,657
0,885
0,420
0,244
2005
0,675
0,854
0,430
0,247
2006
0,677
0,858
0,480
0,278
2007
0,668
0,861
0,520
0,299
2008
0,680
0,864
0,520
0,305
2009
0,685
0,863
0,490
0,289
2010
0,683
0,841
0,460
0,264
Source: Prontzas D.,2014
118
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science
Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2015
Table 4: Corruption Footprint Index, Human Development Index, Corruption Perception Index and
World governance indicators in Greece
(1995-2010)
Greece
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
WorldGovernanceIndicators–WGI
HumanDevelopmentIndex–HDI
0,776
0,639
0,661
0,662
0,647
0,652
0,656
0,646
0,644
0,634
0,619
0,592
0,582
0,867
0,875
0,881
0,802
0,892
0,902
0,912
0,921
0,856
0,861
0,860
0,862
0,863
0,855
CorruptionPerceptionIndex-CPI
0,404
0,501
0,535
0,490
0,490
0,490
0,420
0,420
0,430
0,430
0,430
0,440
0,460
0,470
0,380
0,350
CorruptionFootprintIndex-CFI
0,283
0,260
0,245
0,255
0,259
0,237
0,243
0,250
0,250
0,194
0,174
Source: Prontzas D.,2014
Table 5: Corruption Footprint Index, Human Development Index, and Corruption Perception Index
and World governance indicators in Italy
(1995-2010)
Italy
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
WorldGovernanceIndicators–WGI
HumanDevelopmentIndex–HDI
0,795
0,671
0,669
0,670
0,656
0,646
0,642
0,624
0,619
0,610
0,613
0,604
0,604
0,900
0,903
0,909
0,825
0,916
0,920
0,934
0,940
0,861
0,866
0,869
0,871
0,870
0,854
CorruptionPerceptionIndex-CPI
0,299
0,342
0,503
0,460
0,470
0,460
0,550
0,520
0,530
0,480
0,500
0,490
0,520
0,480
0,430
0,390
CorruptionFootprintIndex-CFI
0,277
0,254
0,313
0,319
0,289
0,268
0,262
0,275
0,256
0,225
0,201
Source: Prontzas D., 2014
References
BARDHAN, P. (1997), «Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues», Journal of Economic Literature
35 (September).
BARRO, R. (2000), «Inequality and growth in a panel of countries», Journal of Economic Growth, 5.
BECKER, G. S. (1968), «Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach», The Journal of Political Economy
76/2 (March-April).
BESANÇON, M. (2003), Good Governance Rankings: The Art Of Measurement, World Peace Foundation,
WPF Program On Intrastate Conflict And Conflict Resolution, John F. Kennedy School Of
Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
HEIDENHEIMER, A. J., JOHNSTON, M., LEVINE, V. T., (1997) (Fourth edition), Political Corruption: A
Handbook. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
HUNTINGTON, S. P. (1968), Political Order in Changing Societies, New Haven, Yale University Press
KAUFMANN, D. (1997),Corruption: the Facts, Foreign Policy 107 (Summer).
KAUFMAN, D. KRAAY, A. MASTRUZZI M. (2010), «The Worldwide Governance Indicators:
Methodology and Analytical Issues», World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430.
KAUFMANN, D., KRAAY, A. (2008), «Governance Indicators: Where Are We and Where Should We Be
Going?», World Bank Research Observer, Spring 2008.
KAUFMANN, D., KRAAY, A., PABLO, Z. L. (1999), «Governance Matters», World Bank Policy Research
Working Paper, No. 2196, Washington, D.C.
--(1999), Aggregating Governance Indicators, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 2195,
Washington, D.C.
119
ISSN 2220-8488 (Print), 2221-0989 (Online)
©Center for Promoting Ideas, USA
www.ijhssnet.com
KAUFMANN, D., SIEGELBAUM, P. (1995), «Privatization and Corruption in Transition Economies»,
Journal of International Affairs 50, 2 (Winter).
KNACK, S., KUGLER, M. MANNING, N. (2003), «‘Second Generation’ Governance Indicators» στο
Transparency International, Global Corruption Report 2003, Berlin.
KOREN, J. (επιμ.) (1918), The History of Statistics. Their Development and Progress in Many Countries,
New York, Macmillan Co.
KORKERY, J. (1999), Governance: Concepts and Applications, IIAS.
KPUNDEH, S. J. (1993), «Prospects in Contemporary Sierra Leone», Corruption and Reform 7, (3).
LASCOUMES, P. (2003), Corruption
LEUNG, C.M. (1989), «The Effect of Corruption on Economic Growth», The Fourth International AntiCorruption Conference Report.
LEYS, C. (1965), «What is the Problem About Corruption?», The Journal of Modern African Studies 3, (2).
MANION,Μ. (1996), «Corruption by Design: Bribery in Chinese Enterprise Licensing»,The Journal of Law,
Economics, & Organization 12, 1 (April).
MAURO,P. (1997), «Why Worry About Corruption?»Economic Issues 6, Washington, IMF.
OSBORNE D., GAEBLER, T. (1992),Reinventing Government - How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is
Transforming the Public Sector, Reading, Addison-Wesley Publ. Co.
PRONTZAS, D. (2006), Η διαφθορά, το αμφιλεγόμενο ζήτημα στην εθνική και διεθνή κοινωνία,PhD,
PanteionUniversity, DepartmentofSociology.
PRONTZAS, D. (2013), Κοινωνία και Διαφθορά, Αθήνα, Παπαζήσης.
PRONTZAS, D. (2014), Λόγος και Πρακτικές Αντιδιαφθοράς. Κείμενα και Ποσοτικές αναλύσεις στις
Ευρωπαϊκές Κοινωνίες, Αθήνα, Παπαζήσης.
WOODS, Ν. (2000), The Challenge of Good Governance for the IMF and the World Bank Themselves, World
Development, vol. 28.
Websites:
http://europa.eu/index_el.htm
http://www.worldbank.org/publicsector/anticorrupt/
http://www.imf.org.
http://www.oecd.org/daf/nocorruption/index.htm
www.un.org/
http://www.europa.com.
http://www.oecd.org/document/21/0,3746,en_2649_34859_2017813_1_1_1_ 1,00.html
http://www.transparency.org/global_priorities/international_ conventions
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/convetion corruption /signing/Convetion-e.pdf.
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/corruption
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/nice_treaty/index_el.htm
http://europa.eu.int
http://www.scribd.com/doc/32565922/ Corruption-Footprint.
120